October 17, 2009

Facial shape preference in heterosexual and homosexual people

The finding that homosexual men prize masculine males faces and homosexual women prize masculine female ones seems consistent with the idea that there is a different etiology for homosexuality in men and women. As I have argued before, homosexual men are feminized, hence their preference for masculine male faces is easily explained. Homosexual behavior in women, however, is usually the outcome of either psychological trauma or plainness-of-appearance, and hence homosexual women do retain a preference for masculine appearance which they transfer to their own gender.

Arch Sex Behav. 2009 Oct 15. [Epub ahead of print]

Sex-Dimorphic Face Shape Preference in Heterosexual and Homosexual Men and Women.

Glassenberg AN, Feinberg DR, Jones BC, Little AC, Debruine LM.

Studies have used manipulated faces to test the preferences of heterosexual individuals for sexually dimorphic facial cues. In contrast to previous studies, which have generally excluded homosexual participants, we directly compared homosexual and heterosexual male and female preferences for manipulated sexual dimorphism in faces (homosexual males: n = 311; heterosexual males: n = 215; homosexual females: n = 159; heterosexual females: n = 218). Prior studies on sexual orientation and preferences for faces that were paired with masculine and feminine behavioral descriptors suggest that homosexual men prefer more masculine men and that homosexual women demonstrate no preference for either masculinity or femininity in women. In our study, we tested for similarities and differences among heterosexual and homosexual males and females with regard to their preferences for a more specific aspect of faces: sexual dimorphism of face shape. Homosexual men demonstrated stronger preferences for masculinity in male faces than did all of the other groups. Homosexual women demonstrated stronger preferences for masculinity in female faces than did heterosexual women. These results suggest attractiveness judgments of same-sex faces made by homosexual individuals are not a mirror image of those made by heterosexual individuals of the opposite sex. Our data suggest that face preferences of homosexual individuals reflect a system of biologically and socially guided preferences at least as complex as those found among heterosexual individuals.

42 comments:

You and they must be joking. I'm amazed that a so-called anthropology blog puts out an unreasoned statement like this: As I have argued before, homosexual men are feminized, hence their preference for masculine male faces is easily explained. Homosexual behavior in women, however, is usually the outcome of either psychological trauma or plainness-of-appearance,.

When I get over being aghast at this level of bar psychology, I'll try to explain to you why this is not an intelligent remark and why the study is hopelessly flawed as they try out their ideas (or your ideas, or my ideas) of what is a masculine face.

Plain/Ugly women are gay because they can't get a man, so they settle for a woman but they prefer men really. I see that particular false male fantasy is still going strong.

I am not sure what the basis for this studies observations are. Perhaps both male and female homosexuality is tied to male power. Perhaps the female homosexual ideal is androgenous (more masculine) or androgenous women are more likely to be gay (therefore more interesting to a gay woman).

What is clear is that gay women are LESS likely to be plain than the general population, although some actively downplay their physical appearence. The key thing about gay women is that they are NOT attracted to men.

And for the record modern gay men are mostly not feminized. The most attractively, masculine testosterone-fuelled young men I meet nowadays are gay (damnit). And a lot of much more feminine men have no interest in men at all, and are quite happy and successful husbands/womanizers.

"Homosexual behavior in women, however, is usually the outcome of either psychological trauma or plainness-of-appearance" I do wonder what your evidence is for this (lack of makeup or short hair in lesbians that you interpret as plainness, but which is in reality a sexual signal?). I am bisexual with evidence for high testosterone exposure in utero from finger length ratios, have not suffered sexual trauma, have never been without a male partner since age sixteen, am not "plain" and get sexual advances from male strangers every day I leave the house, yet I have fallen in love with women four times during the past twenty years, three of whom turned out be be bisexual,too, and I often see women in the city or on TV that I find highly sexually attractive. In addition, my brother and a cousin are homosexual. Doesn't this indicate a different mechanism at work than the ones you propose? One single google search "homosexual women" turned up the following article which also indicates a biological (but not a psychologcal) mechanism: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000762 By the way, if homosexual men find hypermasculine men attractive, but are themselves feminized (which may well be true), the poor things must suffer terribly because they should find only hetero males attractive and not their own kind. But this is not what happens. As the study concludes, things are a bit more complex than you, dear Dienekes, suggest. Please reconsider.

I'm glad others have jumped in as I haven't been able to access the face-shape article that started this kerfluffle -- and it would be stupid to comment further before reading it.

Ock links to one of many articles by D.F. Swaab (Netherlands Institute for Brain Research, Amsterdam). He is a pioneer in neurological research in relation to sexual orientation; click on his name and read some of his stuff, perhaps starting with 'An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men'(http://tinyurl.com/yjhx6lo). Then, I suggest a quick flip through Savic & Lindstrom (Stockholm Brain Inst), 'PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects' (http://tinyurl.com/ykhz6ag).

This should give you enough insight into current developments never again to make such idiotic remarks, at least not in public. Of course, it's almost certain to be more complicated than just a brain 'switch'. Life is like that; not even DNA explains everything. But there can be little doubt now that there is a neurobiological mechanism, and rarely, if not never, personal trauma, ugliness, or limpness of wrist.

Judith, thanks for the follow-up. As I understood it, Dienekes' assumption is not from the article. The article itself seems ok, although one would love to see the actual faces they used. Dienekes has a post "hot and not so hot women" here somewhere, where the "hottest" women look more made-up than the others. The ones I find most attractive are the ones at the very left of the center line, but perhaps that reflects my in-between sexuality.

And for you, Dienekes, some more links:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9125-clue-to-sexual-attraction-found-in-lesbian-brain.html http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/06/straight_men_and_gay_women_hav.html (brain asymmetry similar in heterosexual men and homosexual women and vice versa)http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/10/1117 (homosexual women taller and heavier than tereosexual women) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-3SX5JBB-F&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1054443787&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3b0557712cf0c39a9b755b8031ac6cc9

Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons.

Tomeo ME, Templer DI, Anderson S, Kotler D.California School of Professional Psychology, 5130 East Clinton Way, Fresno, California 93727, USA.In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered.

As to unattractiveness as a contributing factor, we will have to wait for some brave researcher to study the matter. Certainly the complete lack of attractive female homosexual celebrities argues rather against the idea that they are equally beautiful to straight women, or (as was argued!) that they are even more beautiful than average.

Dienekes...Are you seriously trotting out this ragged old paper as your justification?Please read this...starting at about the 6th paragraph down: http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2006/10/exgay_encourage.htmlThis has been used by many anti-gay groups to justify their homophobia. There are many valid concerns about this paper. See this letter in the same journal addressing some of these problems: http://www.springerlink.com/content/jv8ujrkwgb7lq2pg/Basically, they substitute the term 'molestation' for 'sexual contact.' They asked in the questionnaire "Before you were 16 years old, did you ever have sexual contact with a woman or girl 5 or more years older than yourself and at least 16 years of age" and the same for the boys. How can you go from what could quite easily be consensual sex to terming it molestation. This paper should NEVER be used for these reasons. Aside from just being crap, it's irresponsible crap! This is an argument I expect from an association that is "pro-family" (meaning, of course, anti-gay), not from an anthropologist.

And your argument that (and I'm obviously paraphrasing here) "ugly girls go gay" is just downright pathetic. You make this statement as fact...and then go on to say that we'll need 'some brave researcher' to study it. Showing 1st, that you're not aware of any research on this matter, and 2nd, implying that there's some sort of conspiracy trying to stop any such research. Though you've had many whoppers in this exchange, one of the best has to be the last sentence...where you state there are NO attractive female homosexual celebs. Hello!! Portia de Rossi? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portia_de_Rossi Ever heard of her? Did you ever consider any sociocultural reasons for not seeing as many beautiful lesbians?

I think I can best sum up your post by simply saying that you're being a dick. You have no valid arguments...and that makes me quite sad since I'm working on my PhD in molecular anthropology and get a lot of great information from you blog. I'm still waiting to hear where you argued about homosexual men being feminized. I liked ock's comment about how us gays must be suffering terribly since we must always want what we cannot have...the elusive heterosexual. :)

I've just spent some time reading through your other posts on homosexuality and I think I've now figured out why you made these comments. You're just prejudiced. Some quotes from your posts:http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/03/preferred-traits-across-nations-and.html"The finding that "heterosexual more than homosexual participants assigned importance to religion, fondness for children, and parenting abilities" should give pause to those who claim that heterosexuals and homosexuals are equally likely to make good parents."http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/10/beautiful-wives-and-gay-sons.html"if your wife's female relatives have big families, then on the up side there's an increased chance that you have a beautiful and fertile wife, but on the down side there is an increased chance that your son will be gay."On the down side? Nice...

Er, no, I clearly state it is what I have said. People are more than welcome to their opinion that psychologically normal pretty girls with sound childhoods can become lesbians, and I am entitled to my disagreement.

Showing 1st, that you're not aware of any research on this matter, and 2nd, implying that there's some sort of conspiracy trying to stop any such research.

You might find this hard to believe, but there are indeed topics that are taboo in modern academic research. A study to investigate whether female homosexuals are uglier than female heterosexuals is one such topic.

where you state there are NO attractive female homosexual celebs. Hello!! Portia de Rossi?

Lol, the fact that a year or so after the same issue came up in a comment, the same name is mentioned rather justifies my view.

BTW, I explicitly distinguished between trauma and ugliness as causative factors of female homosexuality. With a history of psychiatric illness and immigration fraud (as she alleges her marriage to have been), I do not consider Ms. de Rossi to be a poster child for normality.

Well the way you stated it did sound like you were putting forth an accepted fact.

You still didn't reply to the issue about the research article you linked to...where you stated "The evidence is clear that many female homosexuals have a history of childhood homosexual abuse that female heterosexuals lack."Do you concede that it was a poor article...Or are you just ignoring this? Re: Portia de Rossi...since when are you the arbiter of normality? Are you trying to say that no heterosexual celebs have a history of psychiatric illness? (especially...in her case, anorexia?) So what if her marriage was immigration fraud...yeah, I'm sure no one else has ever done that...this has no bearing on the discussion. Do you think it's a bit hypocritical to throw in these items but leave out the fact that she said she was hiding her sexual orientation? Is it not possible that others have done the same?

What I said -to make it plain- is that female homosexual either have psychological "issues" due to trauma or are not good looking. So, if you think that Portia de Rossi is beautiful, her case falls under the category of psychological "issues" and not under the one of "not good looking".

Are you trying to say that no heterosexual celebs have a history of psychiatric illness?

Of course there are. Are you suggesting that people (homosexual or heterosexual) with a history of serious psychiatric illness are "normal"?

Do you concede that it was a poor article...Or are you just ignoring this?

If you don't like that one, take this one:

J Homosex. 2009;56(4):407-20.LinksSexual and physical abuse: a comparison between lesbians and their heterosexual sisters.

Stoddard JP, Dibble SL, Fineman N.University of California, Davis, Davis, California, USA.The purpose of this study was to investigate similarities and differences in the incidence and patterns of abuse experienced by lesbians and their heterosexual sisters. In a matched sample of 324 lesbian/heterosexual sister pairs, the lesbians reported a greater incidence than their sisters of childhood physical and sexual abuse, as well as adult sexual abuse. Both groups identified male relatives as the most common perpetrator of both childhood physical and sexual abuse. Male relatives were most commonly identified as perpetrators of adult physical abuse and male strangers were most commonly identified as adult sexual abusers. Our results demonstrate that both sexual and physical abuse are common experiences for lesbian and heterosexual women; however, since the context of these experiences is different, each group will have special needs for services and treatment.

You're very fixated on normality. Anyway, I'll leave all else alone and just focus on the paper.

It's not a matter of me not liking the other article you posted...it's that the other article was crap. As for this article, I don't have access from home to the full article so I'm just going by the abstract.

Did you happen to notice that the finding from this paper are the opposite of the other article in the sense that they claim "male relatives were most commonly identified as perpetrators of adult physical abuse and male strangers were most commonly identified as adult sexual abusers." Whereas, the previous article you cited concludes "This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls." And you stated "The evidence is clear that many female homosexuals have a history of childhood homosexual abuse that female heterosexuals lack." So...no, this isn't the same. If you have access to the full article, perhaps you could post some stats? They say lesbians reported a greater incendence...but not how much more. Anyway, this is MEN abusing them, it is not homosexual abuse.

It seems pretty easy for you to ignore the actual content as long as the purported conclusions seem (to you) to show what you want them to. And I would really like you to actually read that first article and the criticisms of it and see how they conflate 'molestation' and 'sexual contact' which are not the same thing.

oops. I sent it before quoting the last sentence of that abstract that you somehow think supports your original position. "Our results demonstrate that both sexual and physical abuse are common experiences for lesbian and heterosexual women; however, since the context of these experiences is different, each group will have special needs for services and treatment."

Lesbian erotic role identification: Behavioral, morphological, and hormonal correlates.Singh, Devendra; Vidaurri, Melody; Zambarano, Robert J.; Dabbs Jr., James M.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol 76(6), Jun 1999, 1035-1049.AbstractLesbian scholars hotly debate the validity of "butch" and "femme" erotic roles. Although some dismiss them as social constructs, others maintain they are natural expressions of lesbian sexuality. The authors compared self-described butch and femme lesbians on gender-discriminating behavioral, morphological, and hormonal measures. Butch and femme lesbians did not differ from heterosexual women on sex role personality traits, depressive symptomology, eating disorders, or body dissatisfaction. Butch lesbians, however, recalled more childhood gender-atypical behavior and had higher waist-to-hip ratios, higher saliva testosterone levels, and less desire to give birth. These findings support the validity of butch–femme classification and suggest that butch lesbians are more male-typical compared to femme lesbians. The butch-femme classification may reflect a within-group difference caused by differential exposure to prenatal androgens. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

Victimization Over the Life Span: A Comparison of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Siblings.Balsam, Kimberly F.; Rothblum, Esther D.; Beauchaine, Theodore P.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Vol 73(3), Jun 2005, 477-487.AbstractLifetime victimization was examined in a primarily European American sample that comprised 557 lesbian/gay, 163 bisexual, and 525 heterosexual adults. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) participants were recruited via LGB e-mail lists, periodicals, and organizations; these participants recruited 1 or more siblings for participation in the study (81% heterosexual, 19% LGB). In hierarchical linear modeling analyses, sexual orientation was a significant predictor of most of the victimization variables. Compared with heterosexual participants, LGB participants reported more childhood psychological and physical abuse by parents or caretakers, more childhood sexual abuse, more partner psychological and physical victimization in adulthood, and more sexual assault experiences in adulthood. Sexual orientation differences in sexual victimization were greater among men than among women.

In the 'Lesbian erotic role.." paper you highlighted a sentence, but I'm not sure why. However you didn't highlight the following sentence "These findings support the validity of butch–femme classification and suggest that butch lesbians are more male-typical compared to femme lesbians. The butch-femme classification may reflect a within-group difference caused by differential exposure to prenatal androgens." So you realize this is saying that not all lesbians are butch...rather, they suggest that a butch-femme classification is valid. You originally said "Homosexual behavior in women, however, is usually the outcome of either psychological trauma or plainness-of-appearance, and hence homosexual women do retain a preference for masculine appearance which they transfer to their own gender."So, according to your idea there shouldn't be many, if any, femme lesbians. I guess this also means that if this article you've just posted is accurate, any femme lesbians would have had psychological trauma (well, unless they're both femme and ugly). You also didn't highlight the sentence before the bolded portion stating that "Butch and femme lesbians did not differ from heterosexual women on sex role personality traits, depressive symptomology, eating disorders, or body dissatisfaction." That directly contradicts some of your previous points.

As for the other article, I'll look at it when I get a chance. Though I'll point out that the last sentence says "Sexual orientation differences in sexual victimization were greater among men than among women...which contrasts with your original argument. Let me ask you this (though I'd still like a reply to some of my previous questions...especially about that first article you threw out)...assuming any of this research is valid, is it not possible that LGB children behaved differently and were more withdrawn and easier 'targets' rather than the abuse itself making them gay? I have no idea...but I'm hoping another reader might be more informed on this issue. It's pretty obvious that you're following an agenda here and just trying to find articles to support your unfounded assertions...which they don't necessarily do.

What is that agenda anyway? Alongside this thread where you once again call all gay men 'feminized' and all lesbians ugly or abused, you seem to be against gay people being foster parents or adopting and seem to think it's a bad thing to have a gay child. It's like I'm reading propaganda by 'focus on the family' instead of an anthropology blog.

So, according to your idea there shouldn't be many, if any, femme lesbians.

That doesn't logically follow. The article I posted showed that a subset of female homosexuals are masculinized and have a high WHR, which are correlates of unattractiveness in women. This certainly does not mean that "femme" female homosexuals are attractive or don't have a history of abuse.

You also didn't highlight the sentence before the bolded portion stating that "Butch and femme lesbians did not differ from heterosexual women on sex role personality traits, depressive symptomology, eating disorders, or body dissatisfaction." That directly contradicts some of your previous points.

I don't see what previous statements it contradicts. Many people with a history of psychological trauma are psychologically sound today. That is the whole point, that some female homosexuals avoid male-female intercourse because it is unpleasant to them due to their life history. Someone who has a fear of flying experiences high anxiety when they are flying, not when they avoid flying and have organized their life so that they don't have to.

By the way, the evidence regarding the psychological well-being of female homosexuals is not clear-cut.

Crothers L, Haller E, Benton C, Haag S.Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, USA.Previous research has reported that when compared to heterosexual women, lesbians may use alcohol and illicit substances to a greater degree and may experience greater psychiatric symptomatology. This study sought to describe any differences in clinical diagnoses, familial histories, and substance usage between lesbian and heterosexual women in a psychiatric outpatient clinic. A chart review was conducted and a sample of 455 heterosexuals and 75 lesbians was obtained. Data, where available, included demographic information, clinical diagnoses, time in treatment, sexual orientation, past and present substance use, and familial substance abuse and psychiatric history. Lesbians were found to have greater past illicit substance use but less current use. No significant differences were found for alcohol use. Similarly, no significant differences in clinical diagnoses were found. Significant differences were found among families. Family members of lesbians had greater substance use and psychiatric histories. These findings both support and dispute some previous research and suggest areas for future researchers to explore.

Though I'l point out that the last sentence says "Sexual orientation differences in sexual victimization were greater among men than among women...which contrasts with your original argument.

Faulty logic. I never made an argument about the effects of victimization on the expression of male homosexuality.

you seem to be against gay people being foster parents or adopting

I certainly am, and I hope that this kind of innovation never comes to Greece.

and seem to think it's a bad thing to have a gay child

It's one of those things that happen. It is certainly unpleasant for many parents who often have children with the goal in mind of leaving descendants.

When dealing with things like homosexuality it is better to actually meet the men and women who are homosexual and work it out yourself. Not really interested in psychobabble as per this report. Homo men prefer masculine male faces instead of feminine male faces? Who says what is masculine or feminine in a man's face? It makes me shudder to think what the hetero men thought were masculine or feminine in other men. If there was a difference with the homos then the heteros seem to have chosen femme male faces. What does that say about hetero men?

Look this report shows how poor Psychology is for hard quantitative facts and how subjective are its assessments. Masculine, feminine is up to the view of the individual. What I think is a masculine face in a woman may not agree with anyone else. It is like the almost racist classing of NW European women as masculine compared with Southern European woman. As to obesity, there are many a fat Southern Euro Mamma compared with other Europeans barring some Eastern Europeans. What is considered buxom in one group may be grossly obese in another. Subjective tags are not the way to judge any groups whether heterosexual or homosexual or something in between.

I live in a small town where people's sexual preferences are easily noted. You can run but you can't hide in my town. The odd thing about the homosexual men and women is that they tend to have more children than the men and women who are heterosexual. Some of these homosexuals must be overcoming there childhood sexual abuse or whatever fanciful explanation there exists for choosing a partner of the same sex for sex!

Stick to genetics, at least the studies are based on mostly reliable facts that can be retested by others. The main problem with genetic studies is the poor interpretation, discussion of the genetic facts. That requires more nous than the simple ability to use multiplex PCRs or doing genetic testing which any Lab assistant can do.

You do realize that there are many children around the world who need a good home...but, of course, you are enthusiastically against gay people adopting. From reading your previous posts I see that's because you think we're a bunch of immoral pedos. Perhaps we should just leave the children with the Catholic church or the Orthodox church, or some other self-appointed peddler of morality.

Oh, and gay adoption will, eventually, come to Greece. Over the past decade there have been many advances in human rights in Greece, despite bigots like you trying to stop them. Homosexuality is becoming more widely accepted there.

Getting a bit back on topic, just to put out a little argument from authority: I am gay, I'm not 'feminized', and I'm an anthropologist. I also think I'd make a great parent some day. There are many other gay anthropologists I know...and gay people in general...who don't fit your horribly prejudicial, unfounded stereotypes.

You really should only stick to genetics...although now that I know you're so quick to quote mine and cherry pick evidence to support your preconceived ideas, however insipid, I'll be much more cautious about reading your posts and will definitely make sure that people know about this.This post was brought to my attention by people that I had recommended your blog to...who were then surprised to see you posting unscientific, homophobic crap.Anyway, thanks for the warning.

You do realize that there are many children around the world who need a good home...

I don't consider experimentation with children to be equivalent to a "good home".

From reading your previous posts I see that's because you think we're a bunch of immoral pedos.

You're having a fit.

Oh, and gay adoption will, eventually, come to Greece. Over the past decade there have been many advances in human rights in Greece, despite bigots like you trying to stop them. Homosexuality is becoming more widely accepted there.

There is no internationally recognized "human right" to gay adoption. And, with an 11% acceptance rate for it, there is no democratic way in which such a "right" could be established in Greek law.

I'm having a fit? You did just imply that any gay people who adopt children will be 'experimenting' with them. Let me spell this out clearly for you: All homosexual people are NOT pedophiles and pederasts. And you've made many more equally reprehensible comments. So it's not me having a fit...rather, it's me (and others) being disgusted by your extreme homophobia.

The acceptance rate for interracial marriage and adoption was once lower than the stat you provide...as was the women's suffrage. This is a matter of basic human rights and decency. People like you seem to be stuck in the past...wishing to demonize a large percentage of the world's population and trying to impose your warped cultural values upon them. Majorities aren't always right. The wikipedia page on LGBT rights in Greece that you presumably got that figure from also states that "legislation protecting against discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of sexual orientation was adopted in early 2005 (Greek law 3304/05), in accordance with the European Union Directive 2000/78." So, as part of the EU, who knows what archaic views of yours might be threatened. Also, in that same section on public opinion it seems that many MPs are in favor or "recognising taxation, inheritance and other legal rights to same-sex couples." Be careful, it's a slippery slope.

That is incorrect. Facial traits are sexually dimorphic in humans, and one can manipulate faces to make them more (or less) feminine (or masculine) by morphing them in the direction of the male (or female) average. No subjective assessments of femininity/masulinity are needed.

morphing them [faces] in the direction of the male (or female) average

Surely, then, the results are stereotypes and not true faces. Which might well skew (or screw) the results.

Anyway, what I did want to point out -- and then I, at least, will leave this conversation -- is the inbuilt bias in any such sampling of gays and lesbians, to wit, self-selection.

The single “nonheterosexual” group inevitably includes not only individuals with a collective sexual orientation identity, but also those who regard their sexuality in purely personal terms. Indeed, two leading researchers in this area estimated that only half of the individuals who report sexual contact with a same-sex adult actually identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Consistent with this observation, the proportion of adults who identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual in a 2000 national probability sample was roughly the same as the proportion who reported same-sex behavior but identified as heterosexual.*

A can of statistical worms, Dienekes. Stick to DNA, which has enough stat problems of its own.

This study builds upon previous epidemiological studies that have shown higher prevalences of AOD and MH disorders among sexual minority populations [7,8,11,13,15]; we extend these findings by showing that treatment utilization for these disorders varies by both gender and sexual orientation. The study findings are strengthened by the use of a population-based sample and a theoretically guided model of health services utilization. In the broader literature it is well known that health services utilization is greater among women generally. Here we have shown that minority sexual orientation is also an important explanatory variable in understanding treatment seeking among women. Lesbians and bisexual women appear to be approximately twice as likely as heterosexual women to report having received recent treatment for mental health or substance use disorders, after controlling for the presence of either type of disorder and other predisposing and enabling characteristics. Indeed, more than half of the lesbians and bisexual women in the study indicated that they had received services in the past year for mental health or substance use-related problems.

All this mental health stuff is just a circular argument Dienekes. Every marginalized community has high drug and mental health problems. Are you also going to argue that Australian aborigines, North American Indians etc should not be allowed to have kids too? Are these people somehow morally deficient for the high rates of these illnesses in their communities?

If there is going to be a mental health requirement for adoption/fostering/parenting it should apply to heterosexual couples too.

Personally I would very much rather my children were straight. It is a much easier life, and I want grandchildren. But if they turn out to be gay I am not going to regret bearing them. If I knew my future child would be gay it would have no impact on my decision to have that child.

Anyhow. It could be argued that bisexually is the most moral sexual orientation. The person inside is more important than the flesh that they wear. This is a purity of morality however that is more theoretical than practical for most of us. :)

If there is going to be a mental health requirement for adoption/fostering/parenting it should apply to heterosexual couples too.

The mental health stuff is related to the issue of whether or not female homosexuals have a history of trauma, not to the issue of whether or not they should adopt children. In my opinion they should not adopt children irrespective of whether they have mental health issues or not, as children should be raised in traditional environments.

By traditional I presume you mean a mother and a father who live happily ever after together, raising their children in an atmosphere of perfect harmony.

Well yes, but I have actually never met a family like this. Every family is weird in its own way. Its the ones that look perfect that are the most frightening. Of the two I can think of that looked perfect, both involved very serious abuse that the entire family hid to the very best of their abilities.

These days about 1/3 of kids are living in a 1 parent home by the time they start school. And IMO happily divorced parents are preferable to married warfare.

Its better that children learn that life and families do not fit into a single model at the start, and learn tolerance for the differences of others, and discard a sense of entitlement to a restrictive "perfect" life. Otherwise they are likely to be disappointed, or unpleasant.

I know a non-feminized gay man who helped two lesbian friends of his have a son. Every time I see him he has new photos and he is so proud of his son. He sees his son regularly and is helping him grow.

Another guy I know has a gay brother who did this and he visibly seethes with rage at the thought of his brother's children being forced into his extended family life. If he would only relax and accept them and their unusual families, it would be better for the children. The problem is not that his brother is gay, or that some of the mothers are. The damage is being done by the straight brothers intolerance. Had his brother had lots of marriages with children the straight brother would not be enraged.

If a family is prepared to put the welfare of their children first and love them, then that is what the key in parenting a child. Not the false illusion of a traditional family life that gives them no preparation for reality. Or worse, causes them to damage others with their intolerance.

"Homosexual behavior in women, however, is usually the outcome of either psychological trauma or plainness-of-appearance"

Which totally fails to address why lesbians have a more masculine type of brain than average women and some physical difference too (see other comments).

I'd very strongly disagree with the 'usually' you stuck in there- I think 'occassionally' would be more accurate.

Percieved plainess among lesbians is more a result of opting out of mainstream ideals of beauty that appeal to men (which would be pointless). The ones I've known socially are just ragingly unfeminine and look a bit rough because of the lack of a make up.

I'm a "gay" male, and I think Dienekes is correct about pretty much all of his assertions. Many of the gay men and women I have known (myself excluded) have experienced early sexual experiences or sexual trauma. And I myself had extremely unhealthy emotional relationships with both of my divorced parents (broken home at the tender age of 1 yo), and I think that goes a long way in explaining my own pscho-sexuality.

It's funny how folks from the ideological Left like to assert that genes don't matter - culture is everything - when it comes to average outcomes among various human populations, but when it comes to determining sexual orientation everything revolves the almighty gene(s)!

To address Mathilda's comment about lesbian brains, I imagine that brain growth in lesbians, as in other people is determined by both their genes and their early childhood environments. The brain is not a static organ, but changes constantly, growing rapidly during adolescence. Even in adults, studies of London cabbies have shown that the hippocampus can grow rapidly at the expense of other parts of the brain (as cab drivers have to memorize all the labyrinthine streets of London to obtain their licenses).

It's funny how folks from the ideological Left like to assert that genes don't matter - culture is everything - when it comes to average outcomes among various human populations, but when it comes to determining sexual orientation everything revolves the almighty gene(s)!

That is a very astute observation. I would like to state, however, that whether homosexuality is genetic or not is beside the point. If I want to hire someone smart, I don't really care if he got his IQ from his parents' genes or from a favorable environment. Nor does a blind man care if he got blindness from his parents or from some accident. The issue is interesting from an evolutionary perspective, but social attitudes towards homosexuality are not dependent on whether or not it is genetic in origin.

Dienekes, I was not surprised by your recent reactionary statements about lesbians and gay men. I do recall your rant some time ago regarding Macedonia. I recall that day leaving and then returning to the Web page because I couldn't believe what I was reading. Now, asking questions about the origins of lesbian and gay male sexuality in the context you have provided presumes that these "need" to be explained - my question then is, whos aaid it had to? You?

Your line of inqury and its implications can be explained by an example from another historical context. What if somebody had started a discussion regarding the role that Christian Eastern Orthodox religious traditions had in facilitiating the mass murders at Srebrenica in Bosnia in 1995?

Old Blog Archive

Dienekes' Anthropology blog is dedicated to human population genetics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and history.

You are free to reuse any of the materials of this blog for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute them to Dienekes Pontikos and provide a link to either the individual blog entry or to Dienekes Anthropology Blog.

Feel free to send e-mail to Dienekes Pontikos, or follow @dienekesp on Twitter.